socialpsych

I am not sure that counts as "not the traditional way." Working there as an RA is a great way to get a leg up when applying to a program. However, no, you should not assume that you will automatically get in; it's just that it might help your chances a lot. I do know of a few really un-traditional cases, where applications were solicited after the deadline (in one case even after April 15th). But how is that information useful to anybody? If a trustworthy and well-respected person says he or she can get you into a program this way, then that person might not be lying. But it hardly seems like a wise thing to adopt as a gameplan!

I agree with this, and generally with the advice to keep it short. Professors have a system in place for dealing with applications efficiently. They get a lot of them, and even so it takes up a ton of their time in the winter and early spring. The email above, while impressive and professional, also reads like an attempt to hijack more of their time, and that could be very irritating. Also, a long email seems to demand a long reply (norm of reciprocity!), which professors are VERY unlikely to have the time or inclination to write -- so I would bet that short emails get many more responses. Finding out whether POIs are taking a student is a good reason to email, IMO. But trying to make a substantive impression through cold-emailing seems very likely to fail. I say this now as someone who has been on the receiving end of a few such emails. Really, they usually end up ignored. The big exception IMO is if you have any network connections with the person you are emailing, especially through your current or past research advisor, or if your advisor is someone famous that the person is likely to have heard of. Those kinds of connections can open a lot of doors. But still, what that gets you is the assurance of having your application read carefully, which probably would have happened anyway given your connections. Everyone expects your application to do the talking. Let it. Be impressive in your SOP. If you email, do so (1) for your own information and (2) maybe to put your name in their heads -- nothing more. My $.02.

Also, I don't know whether it is possible to do this if you're not currently a student, but see whether you can get yourself subscribed to any professional society mailing lists. The Society for Personality and Social Psych list always sends out tons of announcements about lab openings. There must be an analogue in your field.

Maybe things are different in neuro, but in personality/social lab managers are almost always college graduates hoping to go to grad school...I only know of one who actually has a master's degree.

1) The reading you've done and your cool research interests will absolutely help you -- once you get an interview. They might also help you get an interview in the first place, via your great research statement, but mostly I think they would help you get offers if programs are already interested in how you look on paper. 2) Maybe someone in cog/neuro knows otherwise -- I really mostly know about social psych admissions, so take this with a grain of salt -- but I think a lab manager position might be better for you than an MS, assuming you are sure you want to do the PhD. Either of those would DEFINITELY help you out, but I think being a lab manager would look like more research experience than an MS since you would not also be doing coursework, and having a close relationship with a faculty mentor could result in an awesome letter. Since you already know exactly what research you want to do, why not try to work with someone who does that type of research, instead of taking a general psych curriculum? Of course, the downside is that you don't get a master's degree at the end...which doesn't matter for PhD programs (most of which will not excuse you from required coursework for having a Master's) but which could matter if you end up deciding to leave academia.

I do not think they will be viewed favorably, but they might not hurt you since they are lower-division and in a different field. Still, you will have to work to remind people that your psych GPA is good. Maybe it's just me, but isn't 30 psych hours an extremely light psych major? More like a minor, in fact? Can anyone else comment? It certainly isn't optimal, but it might be enough to get you in to some places. To speak to your question about highly prestigious schools, honestly I think you do not have a great chance at those, given your overall GPA and lack of psych coursework (if I read that correctly) and especially your lack of research experience. There are so many applicants now who have spent two years doing research full-time that I think it will be difficult for you to have a shot at the top programs. To make the best of your RA assignment, be extremely responsible and enthusiastic, and as independent as possible. Contribute whatever you can to experimental design and other discussions. Make sure the supervising professor knows you well. Just my two cents. Best of luck!

I was in a similar situation as you and was also advised (by other professors) not to get one from a lecturer, even one who knows me well and believes in my potential. Sorry!

You can ride a kick scooter. Not many people do, though, for whatever reason. A somewhat larger minority skateboards.

We get ours once a quarter. Clearly it varies -- ask at your school.

Going to colloquia and conferences is a great idea if you do happen to finalize a list in time, but that's definitely earlier than I or anyone else I know had a finalized list. Mine was finalized probably around late September, which gave me plenty of time to approach recommenders. My advice would be to start working on your SOP before you decide on a final list. You might be totally different from me and already know perfectly well what your research interests are, but I discovered a lot about mine while drafting my SOP, which in turn informed the programs to which I applied.

Having seen a bit of the other side of admissions as a current grad student, I think there are two main reasons why people get waitlisted. One is, as many people have said, you are definitely "above the bar" but for whatever reason not close enough to the top of the list -- especially if they admitted someone else with similar interests. But they would unquestionably love to have you if they had space. The other reason is that they are excited about your application overall but there is one specific thing about it that makes them hesitate or even worry. Melusine's experience as a Comp Lit BA is a great example of this kind of thing. Or perhaps something specific in an SOP was a turnoff for some reason. Of course, this is the type of waitlist you can (usually) do something about, so if you can get any information about it from the schools, that can help you a lot next year. Also, if there are current students in your field whom you trust to be honest with you, you might consider showing them your entire application and getting their opinion. If you have made some kind of faux pas that the departments themselves might choose not to tell you about, this could be a better way of getting feedback. If you can't turn up any specific thing, that probably just means you were the first type of waitlisted applicant (fantastic but in an unfortunately crowded field). Best of luck!

I was instructed not to have non-TT faculty write my letters, but I had good options among TT faculty. C sounds like the best bet, depending on how much interaction you had during that one course with her. If not, I would choose B over A. I think reputation in the field matters a LOT, but only if it's someone who can actually say something about you. Another thing you could do, as lily_ said, is to try getting in touch with A now. Ask him whether he would be able to write you a strong letter. (Use the word "strong.") If he can't, he will tell you, but on the off chance that he does remember you and was impressed by your performance, you will definitely benefit from having him as your recommender.

You can just send an email.

I am in a small program that often has a one-person waitlist. And the waitlisted person often ends up getting an offer. It is weird that they didn't notify you of anything before you called, but a one-person waitlist is legit and not the same as a rejection, even after the 15th.

Like Malumat, I am in a field where programs are usually very small (with admits in the single digits). And all I will volunteer is that...yes, people talk. How could they not?

There are a lot of questions in this post. Based on your post, I think it won't and it shouldn't. You will be in grad school for 5+ years. You need to find a balance that is sustainable for you. Almost every grad student I know has some kind of hobby or relationship that they devote a lot of time to -- whether it's sports (as for most of us), gardening, traveling, dating....it's helpful, even necessary, to worry about something else for at least a few hours a week. It's true that grad school is different from undergrad in that it calls for a different kind of identification with your work. There are few external deadlines or standards for you to meet and then say "Whew, I'm done." It's just a matter of how hard you feel like pushing yourself. Some faculty advisors will complain if you are not being productive enough to meet their standards, but many won't. It's up to YOU, and that certainly takes a different kind of momentum. However, I absolutely don't believe it means that it is impossible to spend a lot of time on things other than school, or to find whatever kind of balance you need. I think it would be wise to put these things on hold for the beginning of your first year. It may take some time for you to find an equilibrium work pace that you are comfortable with, and you might not want to have such serious demands as your own business distracting you from that process. However, once you do find that rhythm, you will know whether there is space in your life for those other things -- and there may well be space. First of all, your friend may not actually be a big lazy slacker even if she feels like one. I think it's common for people to feel like they aren't doing enough in grad school programs that are focused on research from the beginning (as psych is). Second, yes, I do think it would be a bad strategy to undersell yourself in order to manage expectations, at least assuming you are aiming to get a good academic research job later on. The way I see it, it is a huge blessing to have 5 years to develop myself as a scholar before I have to face the job market and call myself a fully independent researcher. Time is really precious, since the job search and eventually the tenure review will come whether I like it or not. The reason I get to spend these 5 years as an apprentice is that people trust me to use the time well to develop myself. That said, if I need to spend 20 hours a week on a hobby in order to keep myself sane and focused, then that's what I'll do. But I know that if I truly underperform, the only person I'm hurting is myself. My advisors are there to put some limits on my working style, because they know what being a professor is like and are therefore in a good position to tell me if my productivity level is really likely to hurt me later on. I don't want them to lower their standards, because if the kind of work I'm doing is raising a red flag, I want to know about that. Sure, if I keep expectations low and then exceed them, I might get some good letters of reference from my graduate advisors, but no one else in the profession will have those expectations. The people whose expectations I could manage now are not the people whose judgment ultimately matters to me. Getting a job in my field is hard enough that I need to impress the larger community, so just making my advisors happy won't really get me anywhere. In short, I think it depends on your goals. Think about what it would mean to go through your program slacking off just enough to make your advisors happy. What kind of CV do you think you would have, and what kind of job would you be likely to get? Are you happy with that? If not, then you already know what you should do. If so, then go ahead...but know that your strategy will be at odds with the dominant culture of a PhD program, where students really tend to be motivated to push themselves.

As a current student who helped out with grad recruiting this year, I have gotten a few letters that have made me chuckle. Usually it's because the letter writer has unintentionally said something slightly presumptuous. For example, it is not necessary to go out of your way to reassure people that their program is a great one -- we are glad you liked it, but honestly as long as you're not coming it doesn't really matter to us whether you think we are "great." That is for the job market and our general reputation in the field to decide. Also, it is not necessary to imply that we might be upset or offended by your rejection. Of course we wish you had come, but it's not like we're going to take it personally, and it can almost sound like you're fishing for us to reinforce your sense of self-importance: "Indeed this is a dark day for our program! It troubles me deeply to know that YOU will not be coming!" (How else am I supposed to respond to that kind of comment? "Actually, it would have been great if you'd decided to come, but it's really not THAT important to us"?) I don't mean to poke fun. I'm sure I said some of these things myself last year. I know that these comments are completely well-intentioned, and that declining an offer can be a very emotional experience. However, it is just not as emotional to the programs whose offers you are declining (even if they are truly disappointed you won't be coming), so there's no need to write your letter as though it is. Just thought I would share my perspective, since clearly this is a hard thing to get right when you've only been on the applicant side.

Based on my somewhat superficial search last summer, it really ISN'T as safe as other places nearby (even the part west of 101, oddly enough), so it might not be a good idea even if the rent is cheap...of course, YMMV, and I know one person (only one, though!) who has lived there while at Stanford. However, a ton more students I know (self included) have been able to find, inexpensive places in Mountain View and Menlo Park.

Not relevant to history, but a waitlisted applicant got an offer from my program yesterday...we've had a lot of responses from admits in the past few days.

Munger, though I know it's less affordable, and Rains. Off the top of my head, I think Rains is less expensive than Munger (closer to EV rates).

My only comment as a native Hebrew speaker: if you intend to learn Arabic down the road anyway, Hebrew might be a good investment.

Well, can YOU tell what this thread is supposed to be about?

That's 'cause they teach MBAs. Everything is more formal when it involves MBAs. You'll find that many wear suits to teach MBA classes but informal or even jeans otherwise. Congratulations on your acceptance, and enjoy your visit!

Because you talked about studying things not business-related, I assume you are in a PhD program (or something other than an MBA). If so, skirt/top/pumps is more than good enough, yes you could get by in slacks, and yes a skirt suit would be too much. With a skirt/top you might be on the more formal end of the spectrum for these kinds of visits, but certainly no one would look at you funny.

Most PhD students I know (including myself) are renting. Several live in on-campus housing. I only know of one who bought a house, so that does seem to be more unusual.